Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Citation
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Parent Document
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2001-11-13
Other Sections in This Document (7)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
Full Text
808 chars*835Because this issue is one of law, our review is plenary. Practice Book § 10-3 (a) provides that “[w]hen any claim made in a complaint, cross complaint, special defense or other pleading is grounded on a statute, the statute shall be specifically identified by its number.” As this court has noted, however, “our courts have held that the requirement that the pleader specifically identify the statute on which he relies is directory rather than mandatory.” Criscuolo v. Mauro Motors, Inc., 58 Conn. App. 537, 545, 754 A.2d 810 (2000). Similarly, our Supreme Court has held that a trial court may award damages in excess of the amount stated in the demand for relief attached to a plaintiffs complaint. See Southington ’84 Associates v. Silver Dollar Stores, Inc., 237 Conn. 758, 762, 678 A.2d 968 (1996).